HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Sympthsical » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Feb 14, 2020, 07:34 PM
Number of posts: 7,397

Journal Archives

How America has changed in 183 years

Have been rummaging through various books and essays about American economic evolution in the 1800s and came across this bit written in 1840.

"We are not ignorant of the fact, that the merchant, who is literally the
common carrier and exchange dealer, performs a useful service, and is therefore
entitled to a portion of the proceeds of labor. But make all necessary deductions
on his account, and then ask what portion of the remainder is retained, either in
kind or in its equivalent, in the hands of the original producer, the workingman?
All over the world this fact stares us in the face, the workingman is poor and
depressed, while a large portion of the non-workingmen, in the sense we now
use the term, are wealthy. It may be laid down as a general rule, with but few
exceptions, that men are rewarded in an inverse ratio to the amount of actual
service they perform"

Glad America eventually sorted that right out.

My white professor used a racial term against a black man in lecture

This is kind of interesting, and I'd be curious what people here thought.

I'm taking a pre-law class on constitutional rights and minorities this semester. Mainly for fun and because I find the topic interesting. Plus, sometimes you just need something different from dissecting sheep eyes.

Over the weekend, I needed to finish up a midterm paper. It mainly concerned itself with selective incorporation - the practice of the Supreme Court to only gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the states over the 100 or so years after the 14th Amendment passed. Also, a lot of commentary on Hugo Black. If you do not know what Justice Hugo Black's whole deal is, I highly recommend reading up on the man. He's fascinating.

Anyway, my professor has opinions. A lot of them. I'm an AOC type progressive, and a lot of the time even I'm thinking, "Ok, slow down." Spams our inboxes often with a lot of articles with the most partisan ideological positions - if you were ever thinking you were going to write a paper supporting originalism or textualism or talking about how Scalia wasn't such a bad guy - don't. The man might actually stroke out.

Suffice to say, Clarence Thomas is not his favorite person. At all. He's had a running commentary about the Justice all semester long. While I share the professor's legal outlook (loose constructionist, living Constitution), it's been bothering me just how over the top partisan he is and how he pushes relentlessly for only his own political views. I would never write a paper disagreeing with him and feel comfortable about how that grade would turn out.

So his lectures are video taped. I was going through a few of them while writing my paper to ensure I had covered all the bases before turning it in. And there it was: "We all know Justice Thomas is just a big double-stuffed oreo . . ."

Again, this professor is a white man. And a professor. Who is ostensibly teaching critical thinking skills about the law (he's not - he's just straight up advocating his ideology - but let's pretend).

I'm not really ok with this. I kind of want to say something to the administration. It's on video online, so it's not even my word against his he said it. He even laughingly says a few moments later, "Don't get me fired," so he at least knows on some level it's not great. But he also felt ok enough with it to leave it in his video lecture anyone can access online. He says all kinds of things that are fine on Twitter, but maybe not if you're teaching students (his comments about Christians are epic and ongoing. I think my favorite was, "They don't really believe in Jesus anyway" ).

So I'm mulling this over. After a pretty heavy stream of partisanship, the oreo comment is where I literally stopped, got my partner, and showed it to him. I'd been mentioning this professor to him for months, and that was my, "You have to see this shit" moment. I was . . . not shocked. Just didn't see it going that far or blatantly.

I don't want him fired - I don't care that much, and I'm not a pre-law student. But I don't think this is even kind of ok, and it feels like a straw for me about how he's been teaching the entire class all semester and his relentless spam and commentary promoting his own political views.

I'm curious to know how people here would go about this. I have a 4.0 GPA and am not inclined to risk it, so confronting him isn't something that's going to happen.

Would you say something to administration?
Go to Page: 1